I also had more than a couple History of Science courses, one from Roller. He wasn't so naive as to separate pure and applied science, and not so specific in his lack of understanding as to separate the scientific method from pure science. There may be some would-be youngsters who think that they have the scientific genius to create great theory while sitting around a campfire. But, the scientific community is so interconnected that they are completely aware, or should be, of even minor papers in their specific field, which the the reason that so many publish in English. They want it to reach everyone.
The scientist is fully aware of everyone's experiments when he arrives at his hare-brained scheme (not yet even a hypothesis, much less a theory). It is simply a direction to be investigated, rarely greatly different from many others. It may simply be eliminating confusion. If there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation, it may reach the level of being a hypothesis. Only after years of testing would it become a theory. Thus, a theory, like the Theory of Evolution, has been through over a hundred years of testing, and nothing has been found to disprove it yet. Let me clarify this: every biologist in the world would love to be the Superstar who disproved the Theory of Evolution. You would be the biggest name in science for the next thousand years. It won't happen. It is so much a part of the foundation on which biology is based that biology would collapse and have to rediscover something that explained structure, physiology, and genetics.
Since we are in the Bible Belt, there is the thought that religion and science are in disagreement. Yet, the Catholic Church has been a part of it. Most of the older Christian churches have adopted evolution and teach it in their schools. It is interesting that so many think that religion is in opposition---rather than simply a very loud component. Contrary to their opinions, scientists have few religious opinions, at least that they discuss. I never heard a group of scientists sit around and postulate on the existence of a god. If one did, the rest would probably tell him to provide some positive or negative evidence with which to begin a discussion. Conversation ended.
We don't have the Galileos and Copernicus' any more for a reason. They weren't the only game in town. There was a lot of good science going on in China, Persia, India, and the Arab world. We just weren't particularly a part of it. Now, when they conduct one of the supercollider experiments, over three thousand computers worldwide are plugged in to the Hadron. There may be one or ten experiments arising from the data recorded by each computer. A good book which is supposedly written for the masses is "Knocking on Heaven's Door," by Lisa Randall, theoretical physicist at Harvard (think Sheldon for real, except with a personality). This is no titled such because of the search for a "god particle," as some have claimed, but because she is a huge fan of music and of Bob Dylan. Her chapter titles tend to be Dylan lyrics. She also wrote a symphony played by the New York Philharmonic. It is a good book and a fun read. But, it helps if you had at least college physics.
The motivations for scientists are varied. I think most get a kick out of being the first to know something. Every time you do an experiment, until you tell someone or publish it, you are the only person in the world who knows that piece of evidence. It may not be much, and hardly ever pays much, but it is interesting to reach that step. An exchange between a couple of scientists working in the same field is somewhat like Christmas with an exchange of gifts, and you are excited to give and to receive.
